Wong Siew Mee v Jee Lee: Transfer of Negligence Claim to High Court

In Wong Siew Mee v Jee Lee and SMRT Buses Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal to transfer her negligence claim from the District Court to the High Court. The Plaintiff sought the transfer based on the potential for her claim to exceed the State Courts' jurisdictional limit. The court, however, found the Plaintiff's delay in applying for the transfer and lack of sufficient evidence to support her claim warranted the dismissal. The original claim arose from a motor accident where the Plaintiff sustained injuries.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Plaintiff's application to transfer a negligence claim to the High Court was dismissed due to delay and insufficient evidence that the claim would exceed the State Courts' jurisdiction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Wong Siew MeePlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Jee LeeDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal UpheldWon
SMRT Buses Pte LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationAppeal UpheldWon
Andy Tan Poh WengThird PartyIndividualNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Seah Choon Huat JohnnySeah & Co
Anthony WeeUnited Legal Alliance LLC
Pang Weng FongUnited Legal Alliance LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sustained whiplash injury in a motor accident on 26 May 2010.
  2. Plaintiff filed a negligence claim against the First and Second Defendants.
  3. Plaintiff obtained consent interlocutory judgment against the Defendants on 4 July 2012.
  4. Plaintiff applied to transfer the claim to the High Court on 20 August 2019.
  5. The application was filed more than seven years after the consent judgment.
  6. The Plaintiff's claim included general damages for pain and suffering and loss of earnings.
  7. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff's claim was unlikely to exceed $250,000.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wong Siew Mee v Jee Lee and another, Originating Summons 1052 of 2019(Registrar’s Appeal No 312 of 2019), [2020] SGHC 110

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Motor accident occurred involving the Plaintiff and the First and Second Defendants.
Plaintiff filed first claim in MC Suit 14711 of 2011.
Plaintiff involved in a second accident.
First Defendant issued a Third Party Notice against the Third Party.
Consent interlocutory judgment obtained against both Defendants in the first claim.
Plaintiff applied to transfer the first claim to the District Courts.
Transfer application granted, and the first claim was converted to the DC Suit.
Plaintiff commenced a separate action against Mr Gan for the second accident in MC Suit 24606 of 2013.
Plaintiff filed Summons for Directions for the DC Suit.
Directions given on the First Summons for Directions.
Plaintiff filed a second Summons for Directions.
Directions given on the Second Summons for Directions.
Plaintiff’s former solicitors obtained an order of court discharging themselves.
Plaintiff gave notice of intention to act in person and filed the third Summons for Directions.
Directions given on the third Summons for Directions.
Plaintiff obtained consent interlocutory judgment against Mr Gan in the second claim.
Plaintiff appointed her present solicitors.
Plaintiff filed her first affidavit of evidence-in-chief.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appointment for assessment of damages.
Defendants served Interrogatories on the Plaintiff.
Defendants filed an application to compel Plaintiff to answer Interrogatories.
Application to compel Plaintiff to answer Interrogatories granted.
Defendants filed an application for an “unless order”.
Court granted the “unless order”.
Plaintiff served her Answers to the Interrogatories.
Plaintiff filed her second AEIC.
Defendants applied to the State Courts for consolidation of the two claims.
First consolidation application was dismissed.
Defendants filed a second consolidation application.
State Courts granted the second consolidation application.
First tranche of the hearing for assessment of damages for both claims was fixed.
Assessment hearing adjourned.
Plaintiff’s solicitors sought endorsement of Defendants and Third Party to a memorandum under s 23 of the SCA.
Defendants’ solicitors replied they had no instructions to consent to the memorandum.
State Courts notified parties that the first tranche of the assessment for the DC Suit would be refixed to 18 October 2019.
Plaintiff filed the Originating Summons No. 1052 of 2019.
The Originating Summons was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar.
The High Court affirmed the decision of the learned AR and dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Transfer of Cases
    • Outcome: The court held that the transfer application should not be granted due to the Plaintiff's delay, lack of substantiation for the claim exceeding the jurisdictional limit, and potential prejudice to the Defendants.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in application
      • Prejudice to the defendant
      • Insufficient evidence of claim exceeding jurisdictional limit

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Transfer of case to High Court
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Motor Accident Claims
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Kee Huat v Lim Kui LinHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 765SingaporeCited by the Plaintiff to support the argument that the court should exercise its discretion and allow the transfer of the case to the High Court. The court distinguished this case from the present facts.
Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd v Ng Chan TengCourt of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 1015SingaporeCited by the Defendants to argue against the transfer application, emphasizing the significant delay by the Plaintiff and the prejudice suffered by the Defendants. The court relied on this case in its decision.
Ng Djoni v Miranda Joseph JudeHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 670SingaporeCited by the Defendants to argue against the transfer application, highlighting the principles enunciated in Keppel Singmarine II. The court followed and applied the principles from this case.
Ricky Charles s/o Gabriel Thanabalan v Chua Boon YeowCourt of AppealYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 511SingaporeCited to explain why the plaintiff did not apply to transfer the action to the High Court earlier.
Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd v Ng Chan TengCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 839SingaporeCited as a result of certain observations made by the Court of Appeal in Keppel Singmarine I on the decision in Ricky Charles.
Ng Chan Teng v Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 647SingaporeCited to show that the High Court judge allowed the transfer.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
State Courts ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Transfer application
  • Originating summons
  • Registrar's appeal
  • Consent interlocutory judgment
  • State Courts Act
  • Rules of Court
  • Assessment of damages
  • Consolidation of claims
  • General damages
  • Special damages
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder
  • Whiplash injury

15.2 Keywords

  • negligence
  • transfer of case
  • high court
  • district court
  • motor accident
  • personal injury
  • jurisdiction
  • delay
  • damages

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Transfer of Cases95
Negligence90
Automobile Accidents80
Personal Injury75
Whiplash Injury70
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)65
Civil Procedure60

16. Subjects

  • Civil Litigation
  • Jurisdiction
  • Transfer of Proceedings